Comments on: Schedule Changes for Next Yearhttp://hockeytraderumors.com/schedule-changes-for-next-year/
NHL - Hockey Trade Rumors, providing NHL Hockey Trade Rumors since 1996Tue, 03 Mar 2015 18:21:29 +0000hourly1By: rojokehttp://hockeytraderumors.com/schedule-changes-for-next-year/comment-page-1/#comment-22289
Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:28:59 +0000http://localhost/wordpress24/?p=4660#comment-22289As you just said, the Rangers outspend most of the league, but still end up with a crappy record. On the other hand, Ottawa and Minnesota have smaller payrolls, but have been among the better teams on the ice for most of the season. And as for the travel, they already have to travel cross-country at least once or twice a year anyway. But instead of doing it twice, they may be able to make those games in one trip. It would be easier for Pacific and Northwest division teams in this scenario, because the Eastern conference teams are fairly close together. The Atlantic Division isn’t nicknamed the Bus Division for nothing.
]]>By: nskerrhttp://hockeytraderumors.com/schedule-changes-for-next-year/comment-page-1/#comment-22288
Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:59:57 +0000http://localhost/wordpress24/?p=4660#comment-22288This is an interesting concept, but the reason it works in the NFL is that there are only 16 regular season games. Could you imagine if it was determined that Vancouver and Florida were considered equal strength. That would add so much travel and cost to trying to match these teams up, it wouldn’t make sense.

Once you subtract the division teams, if you were to try this on a conference level, there is a good chance you would play more games against a opponent in another division than your own which wouldn’t make too much sense.

The other thing is that free agency changes teams so quickly. Look at teams like the Rangers, they could end up with a crappy record one year and outspend the entire league the next bringing in every player known to man. Is it fair then to have to matchup against a team that can spend that much.

If anything, if a salary cap is not instituted (I think it will be in 2004), maybe create an in conference schedule of a specific amount of divison games, a specific amount of non-divsion games and the rest against teams with the same payroll. That way you could see who the best team for the buck is. If the Rangers lets say had to play a team like Detroit a lot or Dallas or Colorado because of its payroll, I would think they would either look to change how they do business or lower their salaries.

]]>By: rojokehttp://hockeytraderumors.com/schedule-changes-for-next-year/comment-page-1/#comment-22287
Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:15:40 +0000http://localhost/wordpress24/?p=4660#comment-22287There’s something the NFL does which the NHL could adopt. A teams final standings determines which teams they play the following season, outside of the divisional games.

For example, all the division winners (regular season, of course), would still play each other, but they wouldn’t necessarily play the teams which finished at the bottom of the division. The theory behind it is that teams of equal or similar talents levels would benefit more from playing each other than they would playing teams which are ahead of them in terms of developing players. Does Colorado really need to play Atlanta?

If it were to be adopted, you could have 8 divisional games, 4 vs the conference teams, leaving 12 games to be played outside the conference. 1st and 2nd place teams play each other twice, leaving 2 games, which could be split up as each individual team requested. Toronto could make its regular Western Canada road trips, or play Detroit and Chicago once again.